This is part of The Pile, a partial archive of some open source mailing lists and newsgroups.
To: svlug@lists.svlug.org
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 17:46:11 -0800 (PST)
From: ikluft@thunder.sbay.org (Ian Kluft)
Subject: Re: [svlug] Exim on Red Hat 8.0
>Greg Herlein <gherlein@herlein.com> wrote:
>> > I didn't have any major complaints with
>> > Sendmail. Sendmail has run well for me. I just wanted
>> > to try out exim. My initial impressions are quite
>What are the compelling arguments to switch? If my sendmail is
>working fine, what advantage(s) are there to converting?
If everything is working fine, frankly you're in no need to hurry to switch.
But to answer your question, here are some reasons why I prefer Exim...
* Exim was designed with modern security issues in mind. Sendmail is a
direct descendent of 1980's code. For some, Sendmail still carries scorn
for an infamous history of security blunders all the way back to when it
was the primary entry vehicle for the Morris Internet Worm of 1988,
which shut down the Net.
* You can block connections from hosts which don't have a reverse DNS entry.
This was one of spammers' earliest "tricks" to hinder efforts to trace
them. But most still use it.
* It has excellent control of mail relaying (relay only for domains you
own/host) and native support for realtime blocking lists "RBLs".
* Messages can be filtered for spam and viruses while the remote host is
still connected - rejecting them at this stage forces the spammer to
store it on their disk, not ours.
* Configuration files are readable without a macro preprocessor, giving you
direct access to all its features. (Exim started in 1995 as a ground-up
rewrite of Smail, and mimics this strength of Smail.)
* The configuration can be very powerful - I use it to run MailMan lists
for several domains. i.e. Exim uses Mailman's configs to detect mail
lists - I don't have to touch Exim and it uses a new list immediately.
* Before Sendmail had "milters" (mail filters), Exim allowed embedded Perl.
Marc Merlin used this feature to embed the perl-based SpamAssassin in
Exim with his SA-Exim package.) However, Perl is not required if you
wish to optimize for performance - Exim's other features remain.
* You can use string expressions and database queries to make very powerful
mail routing. You can optionally embed PostgreSQL or MySQL. Or just
use DB/GDBM/SDBM.
* Mail routing and delivery can be controlled using separately-configured
so that you can write new ones with or without programming...
"routers" - control of handling of an address' host/domain
"directors" - control of handling of an address' local target
"transports" - delivery mechanisms to files, network, scripts, etc
I could go on. That's off the top of my head.
For more info see http://www.us.exim.org/
===
Date: 07 Jan 2003 18:01:07 -0800
From: Florin Andrei <florin@sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [svlug] Exim on Red Hat 8.0
Greg Herlein wrote:
> > > I didn't have any major complaints with
> > > Sendmail. Sendmail has run well for me. I just wanted
> > > to try out exim. My initial impressions are quite
> What are the compelling arguments to switch? If my sendmail is
> working fine, what advantage(s) are there to converting?
Different groups prefer different MTAs. Other groups prefer Postfix,
others Qmail. This group likes Exim; that's why you'll see strong
advocacy for Exim here.
===
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 18:43:04 -0800 (PST)
From: ikluft@thunder.sbay.org (Ian Kluft)
To: florin@sgi.com (Florin Andrei)
Subject: Re: [svlug] Exim on Red Hat 8.0
>From: Florin Andrei <florin@sgi.com>
>On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 16:31, Greg Herlein wrote:
>> > > I didn't have any major complaints with
>> > > Sendmail. Sendmail has run well for me. I just wanted
>> > > to try out exim. My initial impressions are quite
>> What are the compelling arguments to switch? If my sendmail is
>> working fine, what advantage(s) are there to converting?
>Different groups prefer different MTAs. Other groups prefer Postfix,
>others Qmail. This group likes Exim; that's why you'll see strong
>advocacy for Exim here.
Well, that may be taking it too far. If you ask on the SVLUG list what
people like about Exim, you're sure to find people willing to answer.
But you can find fans of other MTAs here on the SVLUG list as well.
And they have nothing to fear just because Exim is the topic right now.
One of the nice things about Linux (in common with most Unixes) is
having choices of what to run for the various subsystems.
===
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 04:59:57 +0000
From: "Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com>
To: svlug@lists.svlug.org
Subject: Re: [svlug] Exim on Red Hat 8.0
Florin Andrei (florin@sgi.com) wrote:
> Greg Herlein wrote:
> > > > I didn't have any major complaints with
> > > > Sendmail. Sendmail has run well for me. I just
> > > > wanted to try out exim. My initial impressions are
> > > > quite
> > What are the compelling arguments to switch? If my sendmail is
> > working fine, what advantage(s) are there to converting?
>
> Different groups prefer different MTAs. Other groups prefer Postfix,
> others Qmail. This group likes Exim; that's why you'll see strong
> advocacy for Exim here.
Another possible explanation is that exim is the default MTA offered
with Debian, which is itself fairly popular around SVLUG. This is of
course somewhat chicken-and-egg: exim is popular because it's offered
on Debian, but it's the Debian default because the conifguration and
maintenance are sane.
Other relative merits:
- It's FSF Free Software / OSI Open Source Certified (as opposed to
qmail).
- As noted, it's got a better security reputation (noting that
Sendmail's been pretty good since the mid/late 90s) and
configurability than Sendmail.
- There are many useful plugins and modules you can add to exim. It
offers a great deal of flexibility, most of which can be added
fairly painlessly (anyone who's tried gathering, building, patching,
installing, and configuring qmail add-ons can appreciate this).
- It's not the fastest, safest, most configureable, what have you,
MTA. However, it *does* balance a bunch of competing interests
pretty well.
Compare it to postfix and courier as other midweight alternatives.
Marc's got a good MTA list which may or may not be an LJ article by now.
Peace.
===
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 21:45:47 -0800
From: Marc MERLIN <marc_news@merlins.org>
To: Ian Kluft <ikluft@thunder.sbay.org>
Subject: Re: [svlug] Exim on Red Hat 8.0
Ian Kluft wrote:
> >What are the compelling arguments to switch? If my
> >sendmail is working fine, what advantage(s) are there to
> >converting?
> If everything is working fine, frankly you're in no need
> to hurry to switch.
Right.
> But to answer your question, here are some reasons why I prefer Exim...
Thanks for being more verbose than me, I'm trying to catch
up with all my mail
> * Before Sendmail had "milters" (mail filters), Exim allowed embedded Perl.
> Marc Merlin used this feature to embed the perl-based SpamAssassin in
> Exim with his SA-Exim package.) However, Perl is not required if you
> wish to optimize for performance - Exim's other features remain.
Mmmh, I think you are talking about local_scan, it's an exim 4 (only)
feature, and it's not really related to perl, although spamassassin is
of course written in perl.
> I could go on. That's off the top of my head.
That's already a pretty good list, thanks for giving details
===
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 00:15:28 -0800
From: J C Lawrence <claw@kanga.nu>
To: Florin Andrei <florin@sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [svlug] Exim on Red Hat 8.0
Florin Andrei <florin@sgi.com> wrote:
> Different groups prefer different MTAs. Other groups prefer Postfix,
> others Qmail. This group likes Exim; that's why you'll see strong
> advocacy for Exim here.
While true, that coincidence is not accidental. There's also a strong
Postfix presence locally. (I like and use both)
===
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 10:22:08 -0800
From: bill@wards.net (William R Ward)
To: Florin Andrei <florin@sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [svlug] Exim on Red Hat 8.0
Florin Andrei writes:
> Greg Herlein wrote:
>> > > I didn't have any major complaints with
>> > > Sendmail. Sendmail has run well for me. I just wanted
>> > > to try out exim. My initial impressions are quite
>> What are the compelling arguments to switch? If my sendmail is
>> working fine, what advantage(s) are there to converting?
>
>Different groups prefer different MTAs. Other groups prefer Postfix,
>others Qmail. This group likes Exim; that's why you'll see strong
>advocacy for Exim here.
You do not speak for the entire group, just some of its more vocal
members. Personally, I prefer sendmail.
===
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 10:25:14 -0800
From: bill@wards.net (William R Ward)
Subject: Re: [svlug] Exim on Red Hat 8.0
Ian Kluft writes:
>> Greg Herlein <gherlein@herlein.com> wrote:
>>> > I didn't have any major complaints with
>>> > Sendmail. Sendmail has run well for me. I just wanted
>>> > to try out exim. My initial impressions are quite
>>What are the compelling arguments to switch? If my sendmail is
>>working fine, what advantage(s) are there to converting?
>
>If everything is working fine, frankly you're in no need to hurry to switch.
>But to answer your question, here are some reasons why I prefer Exim...
>
[...]
>
>I could go on. That's off the top of my head.
>
>For more info see http://www.us.exim.org/
FYI: Most, if not all, of those things are now available in newer
versions of sendmail.
===
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 11:10:05 -0800
From: Marc MERLIN <marc_news@merlins.org>
Subject: Re: [svlug] Exim on Red Hat 8.0
William R Ward wrote:
> FYI: Most, if not all, of those things are now available in newer
> versions of sendmail.
Definitely not all (like callbacks/callouts, or alias generation on the
fly), but indeed sendmail is trying to catch up.
It's still 5 times as complex to configure though...
===
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 23:38:20 -0800
From: bill@wards.net (William R Ward)
Subject: Re: [svlug] Exim on Red Hat 8.0
Marc MERLIN writes:
>On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 10:22:08AM -0800, William R Ward wrote:
>> You do not speak for the entire group, just some of its more vocal
>> members. Personally, I prefer sendmail.
>
>Since you say you prefer sendmail, I assume that it means that it's better
>for you than the alternatives (exim and postfix, I'm not counting qmail,
>which isn't open source, and therefore not a true alternative to sendmail)
>
>So, my question is, and I'm not trolling, I'm really curious: what have you
>found better, or more to your liking than the equivalent in exim and postfix
>(if they exist, although with the exception of milters, they should)
It's the traditional standard Unix MTA, and it's the MTA of choice for
all the commercial Unix flavors. Since I view Linux as just another
flavor of Unix, I don't mess with the core software. That's also why
I prefer nvi over vim, and bind over any alternative.
--Bill.
--
William R Ward bill@wards.net http://www.wards.net/~bill/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistency is not really a human trait.
--Maude (from the film "Harold & Maude")
===
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 01:18:58 -0800
From: Marc MERLIN <marc_news@merlins.org>
Subject: Re: [svlug] Exim on Red Hat 8.0
William R Ward wrote:
> It's the traditional standard Unix MTA, and it's the MTA of choice for
> all the commercial Unix flavors. Since I view Linux as just another
I see your point of view.
I guess I don't quite share it though: I used to compile and install the
suite of GNU shell/file/findutils on each non linux machine I had to
work on, before starting any work, because it did always save me time
over trying to use the vendor tools (I still remember things like how
much time I lost due to a bug induced by Sun tail -n 10000 not working
because the -n lines had to fit in a small buffer, and tail would
truncate to less lines than what I requested)
> flavor of Unix, I don't mess with the core software. That's also why
> I prefer nvi over vim, and bind over any alternative.
Mmmh, for nvi over vim, I have to disagree. Vim has a vi
compatible mode that is more vi like (with all the downsides
of vi) than any other clone I've met. That said, while I
can work with plain vi, vim is also, with midnight
commander, one of the first tools I install on a system I
have to work on.
As for sendmail, I wouldn't dream of doing what I do today
with exim, with sendmail. Sendmail is capable of most (not
all) of the functionality, but would take me much longer to
configure (and I used to be a sendmail admin)...
I think an MTA for a mail relay or an MX is something
important enough that you want to have your own version
anyway, at which point you could be compiling another MTA
instead, but you don't have to agree with me on this.
For a workstation that only sends mail to a relay, it may be
easier to just leave sendmail there, because as you mention
it's there and it's the default.
===
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 10:41:05 +0000
From: "Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: [svlug] Exim on Red Hat 8.0
William R Ward (bill@wards.net) wrote:
> Marc MERLIN writes:
> >So, my question is, and I'm not trolling, I'm really curious: what
> >have you found better, or more to your liking than the equivalent in
> >exim and postfix (if they exist, although with the exception of
> >milters, they should)
>
> It's the traditional standard Unix MTA, and it's the MTA of choice for
> all the commercial Unix flavors. Since I view Linux as just another
> flavor of Unix, I don't mess with the core software. That's also why
> I prefer nvi over vim, and bind over any alternative.
...and _how_ is it you discover new things exactly?
> Consistency is not really a human trait.
> --Maude (from the film "Harold & Maude")
Ironic.
Peace.
===
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 03:06:22 -0800
From: bill@wards.net (William R Ward)
Subject: Re: [svlug] Exim on Red Hat 8.0
Karsten M. Self writes:
>William R Ward (bill@wards.net) wrote:
>> Marc MERLIN writes:
>
>> >So, my question is, and I'm not trolling, I'm really curious: what
>> >have you found better, or more to your liking than the equivalent in
>> >exim and postfix (if they exist, although with the exception of
>> >milters, they should)
>>
>> It's the traditional standard Unix MTA, and it's the MTA of choice for
>> all the commercial Unix flavors. Since I view Linux as just another
>> flavor of Unix, I don't mess with the core software. That's also why
>> I prefer nvi over vim, and bind over any alternative.
>
>...and _how_ is it you discover new things exactly?
I stay far from the bleeding edge, as a rule. I'm a late adopter.
It's one reason I run Linux, actually--so I don't have to have the
latest hardware.
>> Consistency is not really a human trait.
>> --Maude (from the film "Harold & Maude")
>
>Ironic.
I don't think so. I enver said I always stay away from newer
software. Other people pointed out the gcc vs. built-in C compiler
issue, and GNU tools, and I do use those. Even on Solaris or other
Unices besides Linux. I never pretend to be consistent.
Still, I suppose it's time to change the sig quote...
--Bill.
--
William R Ward bill@wards.net http://www.wards.net/~bill/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by
little statesmen and philosophers and divines." - Emerson
===
Date: 13 Jan 2003 10:29:35 -0800
From: Florin Andrei <florin@sgi.com>
To: svlug@lists.svlug.org
Subject: [svlug] compilers [was: Exim on Red Hat 8.0]
On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 00:15, Dale Harris wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 11:38:20PM -0800, William R Ward elucidated:
> >
> > It's the traditional standard Unix MTA, and it's the MTA of choice for
> > all the commercial Unix flavors. Since I view Linux as just another
> > flavor of Unix, I don't mess with the core software. That's also why
> > I prefer nvi over vim, and bind over any alternative.
>
> Jeez, I guess you better use the vendor supplied C compiler instead of
> gcc, too. To be completely consistent.
Sometimes, that actually makes sense. In pretty much any benchmark
and/or real-life test i've tried, MIPSPro C/C++ with -IPA
(Inter-Procedural Analysis) turned on blew the heck out of gcc for 64
bit code.
Now, of course, take this with a grain of salt, given my
employer-inflicted bias. :-) (no, really, it's true, i started with the
opposite bias, but i changed my mind after seeing the numbers)
===